3 ms·
Give that argument, wouldn't Texas be better off seceding from the rest of the union and not exporting any oil? Practically free energy for all their residents!
by avar 8y ago
Give that argument, wouldn't Texas be better off seceding from the rest of the union and not exporting any oil? Practically free energy for all their residents!
Of course that would be foolish, they need to import things in return. Similarly, the US is benefiting from importing goods that are cheaper than they otherwise would be, because it's exporting more oil and lowering the market price.
- ars 8y agoI don't think you have to secede from the union to not export oil. Just add some really bureaucratic and complicated zoning for any export pipelines or terminal construction, etc. If there were free energy there people would start energy intensive industry, over time enough demand would go up enough to balance out supply. That's basically what happens in Iceland with alumunium, or Canada with Hydro-Quebec. You can check out their economies to see real-world examples.
- alacombe 8y agoQuebec issue is really a NIMBY syndrome, they have no problem using gas/oil, but they have no problem 1) using Alberta's oil, and 2) getting boatload of (dirty) money from the equalization policy.
- jeromegv 8y agoYou were in so much rush to spill some hate on Quebec that you failed to realize that your comment has no relationship with the point that the parent was making. Oil in Quebec has no relationship to the previous comment, the comment was how some energy-intensive industries develop in economies where energy is dirt cheap. What is dirt cheap in Quebec is electricity (made out of water, hydro-electricity), which created the aluminimum industry and lots of data center. How is that any relevant on how Quebec doesn't want to have pipelines?
- cryptonector 8y agoNo, because no one would bother to produce oil they could not sell at a profit. There's a lot more to economics and politics than the price of oil anyways.